A lot of players will have their guaranteed money payed out earlier in the contract for this very reason. You give him a chance with a big contract, and the player becomes an easy cut after 2-3 years if they reduce productivity.
Right, but still. If a guy is on the free agent market, it obviously means that his team didn't value him at the money he's looking for. And usually, that team is right cause they've known him for the past so many years. Of course some guys are pushed out cause of a team not wanting to invest too much into one position (Payne) or being up against the cap, but you just look around the league and free agency is risky business, at least when it comes to the big ticket free agents. It's why I'd like to see Poles really use free agency to fill gaps for the most part with quality, affordable players and knock out the draft. Of course with the bare cupboard left by Pace and the mountain of cap space, he'll have to take some swings on big money guys, and I just hope they pan out.
I don't know the 49ers cap situation, but I can also say that good players make the market simply because a salary cap is a nightmare to manage and it's hard to have the money you want to spend every time you need to spend it (which is why Poles cut all those rich contracts; spent a bad year buying more flexibility than most GMs ever get a chance to have).
Right, and i'm not disputing that. But sure, the 9ers have cap problems, and if they're willing to part with McGlinchey to help ease those problems, then that inherently means he's not THAT important to their success, thus willing to part ways with him for as much money as he'll command, hence his previous team not valuing him THAT much. I'm not saying he couldn't be a great pickup, just that this is the nature of free agency. You'll never see a team like the Chiefs let a guy like Chris Jones go because they're up against the cap, for example.
Which is all i'm saying. If McGlinchey was truly great and a linchpin to their success, then he'd be one of those high priority guys and another would be cut or not re-signed to make room for him. But his availability (presumably) inherently means he was expendable to some degree and thus shouldn't be viewed as or paid as an elite guy.
What do you disagree with? You just said what I said in a different way, that he's not a linchpin to their success compared to other guys and thus expendable.
Yea he's a good fit for us but that doesn't mean we should back the Brinks truck up for him.
Except not in the case we are discussing where multiple top players at their position are strapping dollars.
Well the Chiefs did let Tyreek Hill go but knowing they couldn't keep all their best players they got out in front of the problem and got a huge return for him.
I think that's a good example of how a true game-breaking talent is valued beyond hitting the free agent market. In that instance, the Chiefs recognized their inability or unwillingness to retain him and thus the value of getting more than a 3rd round comp pick back, and also Miami being willing to give up a first round pick and a massive contract to the guy. He's a true game breaker worthy of a giant contract and thus he didn't hit the free agent market (same for Davante Adams).
The think with Payne is he’s going to require one of the highest defensive contracts in the NFL. When handing out those types of deals, I want to look at a sustained and consistent track record of success. That doesn’t exist with Payne. This season he doubled his previous highs in sacks and TFL. Maybe he keeps this level of play up. Maybe he doesn’t. But the track record isn’t there and he won’t have Jonathan Allen wherever he goes. It’s a riskier signing than most are willing to acknowledge. If he reverts back to his previous 4 seasons of production, could be one of the worst contracts in the league. Of course on the flip side, if he keeps this years level of play up, you have a dominant player worth the $$$. The risk is pretty substantial though. It took him 5 years and a contract year to breakout.
Right. All great points, and maybe he does turn out to be worth it, but that's a whole lot of money to pay to find out. Hence the inherent risk of handing out big money in free agency. One big misstep and you're significantly hamstringing your roster potential.
Big time. Which is why I’d prefer going after Hargrave. He’s 29, but that means you should be able to get him on a 2-3 year deal. Beyond that, he’s been nothing short of consistent and can also play both DT spots. I think he’s the better player too so that helps. Give me the guy with the proven track record who also won’t require the long term commitment / risk. I think Hargrave should be able to keep his level of play up for at least 2-3 more seasons which fits the Bears window (playoffs in 2024, SB in 2025).
